Scrutinizing the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Through Cicero’s Political Thought
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Most people view artificial intelligence as a tool that can help improve the quality of human life. However, artificial intelligence cannot be viewed from a single perspective. Instead, we should recognize how artificial intelligence affects society and politics in the present day. Therefore, this research searches for the normative guideline of the regulation of artificial intelligence and how we regulate artificial intelligence appropriately. In order to explore it, this research studies the political thought of Marcus Tullius Cicero that will help provide guidance for establishing norms as a foundation for artificial intelligence governance.
Methods: This study is documentary research that analyzes three of Cicero’s texts. The two primary texts are De re publica and De Legibus. In addition, De Officiis is used as a supplementary text to further clarify and expand the analysis of the primary texts.
Results: The political thought of Cicero can be applied for the regulation of artificial intelligence through three main principles. 1) the public interest: artificial intelligence is as public interest. Therefore, its benefits should be distributed fairly for all. If this process will be successful, we use it for consultation in order to gather information and knowledge for decision-making and regulation for the public interest. 2) Deliberation: deliberation helps to suggest the guideline of public policy that follows the public interest. All classes will be received appropriately depend on each interest. No one should be able to monopolize such benefits for themselves alone in order to ensure the effective realization of the principle of public interest and the practice of deliberation. 3) The mixed regime: the adoption of a mixed system would serve as a concrete and practical systemic mechanism for realizing both principles. We consider the relevant stakeholders through the four key components: 1) money, 2) information, 3) personal data both online and offline, and 4) the development of artificial intelligence. If any sector possesses substantial capacity in this regard, that sector should be included in deliberation so that no single sector can monopolize matters related to artificial intelligence.
Application of this study: This research findings showed that the state should play the primary role as the legitimized political institution by the people. The state should collaborate with various sectors for the regulation of artificial intelligence with an emphasis on ensuring that artificial intelligence is treated as a matter of public interest.
Conclusions: This research presents two main findings. 1) The political thought of Cicero can be applied for the regulation of artificial intelligence through three principles: the public interest, deliberation, and a mixed regime. The main idea behind these three principles is political power should not be concentrated in the hands of any single institution or individual, for such concentration is the root of tyranny, which destroys the freedom of the people and subjects them to domination and oppression. 2) Among various sectors, the private sector should not be fully trusted because its primary goal is profit generation rather than serving the public interest. Therefore, the state should play the primary role. The state should work together with various sectors in order to regulate artificial intelligence so that its benefits can be distributed equitably among all members of society. Therefore, everyone must be comprehensively involved in matters concerning artificial intelligence.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Atkins, J. W. (2013). Cicero on Politics and the Limits of Reason: The Republic and Laws. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Atkins, J. W. (2018). Roman Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aytac, U. (2022). Digital Domination: Social Media and Contestatory Democracy. Political Studies, 72(1), 6-25.
BBC News. (2024). “We’ll Need Universal Basic Income – ‘AI Godfather.” Retrieved 22 November 2024, from https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnd607ekl99o.
Beard, M. (2024). Rom: Amnat Sapha Lae Prachachon. [SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome]. Manta, K. (Trans.). Bangkok: Sophia Press. (In Thai)
Bloom, P. (2023). The Danger of Smart Ideologies: Counter-Hegemonic Intelligence and Antagonistic Machines. In S. Lindgren, (ed.), Handbook of Critical Studies of Artificial Intelligence, (pp. 33-42). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bufacchi, V. (2023). Why Cicero Matter. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Capasso, C. (2022). Manipulation as Digital Invasion: A Neo-Republican Approach. In F. Jongepier, & M. Klenk, (Eds.), The Philosophy of Online Manipulation, (pp. 180-198). New York: Routledge.
Capodivacca, S., & Giacomini, G. (2024). Discipline and Power in the Digital Age. Critical Reflections from Foucault’s Thought. Foucault Studies, (36), 227–251.
Cicero, M. T. (2014). On the Republic and the Laws. Fott, D. (Trans). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Cicero, M. T. (2000). On Obligations. Walsh P. G. (Trans). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI Ethics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2022). The Political Philosophy of AI: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Connolly, J. (2015). The Life of Roman Republicanism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chaipumee, A. (2022). The Roman Republic as Polybius’ and Cicero’s Model for the Mixed Regime. Journal of Political Science Critique, 9(18), 36–78. (In Thai)
Crawford, K. (2021). The Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. London UK: Yale University Press.
Filgueiras, F. (2026). Artificial Intelligence and Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fott, D. (2014). Introduction. In M. T. Cicero, On the Republic and on the Laws. Fott, D. (Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Fuchs, C. (2020). The Ethics of the Digital Commons. Journal of Media Ethics, 35(2), 112–126.
Danaher, J. (2022). Freedom in an Age of Algocracy. In S. Vallor, (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Technology, (pp. 250-272). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gertz, N. (2018). Nihilism and Technology. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gwynn, D. M. (2012). The Roman Republic: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hansen, M. H. (2010). The Mixed Constitution Versus the Separation of Powers: Monarchical and Aristocratic Aspects of Modern Democracy. History of Political Thought, 31(3), 509-531.
Held, D. (2021). Nana Prachathippatai. [Models of Democracy]. Limpanuson, S. (Trans). Bangkok: Bookscape. (In Thai)
Hintz, A., Wahl-Jorgensen, K., & Dencik, L. (2018). Digital Citizenship in a Datafied Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hoeksema, B. (2023). Digital Domination and the Promise of Radical Republicanism. Philosophy & Technology, 36(17), 1-20.
Holton, J. E. (2007). Makhat Tun Li At Sit Se Ro. [Marcus Tullius Cicero]. In L. Strauss, & J. Cropsey, (Eds.), Prawat Pratya Kanmueang, Lem Thi 1. [History of Political Philosophy, Volume 1]. Chantornwong, S. (Trans), (pp. 273-301). Bangkok: Kobfai. (In Thai)
King, R. (2024). The Shortest History of Ancient Rome. New York: The Experiment.
Lindgren, S. (2023). Introducing Critical Studies of Artificial Intelligence. In S. Lindgren, (Ed.), Handbook of Critical Studies of Artificial Intelligence, (pp. 1-19). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mckelvey, F., & Roberge, J. (2023). Recursive Power: AI Governmentality and Technofutures. In S. Lindgren, (Ed.), Handbook of Critical Studies of Artificial Intelligence, (pp. 21-32). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Mitchell, M. (2020). Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans. London: Pelican books.
Mukdaratsami, P. (2013). Kansueksa Naeokhit Nai Kan Sang Sathaban Thang Kanmueang Lae Krabuankan Thang Kanmueang Nai Rabop Prachathippatai Thi Phunam Mi Khunnatham Lae Phonlamueang Mi Khwam Khemkhaeng. [The Study of Idea for the Establishment of Political Institution and Political Process in Democracy, the Virtue Leaders and Civic Citizen]. Bangkok: King Prajadhipok's Institute. (In Thai)
Mukdaratsami, P. (2014). Bon Senthang Khwamkhit Thang Kanmueang Chak Kham Phayakon Mahawitthayalai Den Fi Thueng Hong Rom Kaet Ao Chawit. [On the Path of Political Thoughts From Delphi Basilica’s Prophecy to Auschwitz Gas Chamber]. Nonthaburi: Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University of The University Press. (In Thai)
Müller, V. C. (2020). Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. Retrieved 22 June 2024, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ai/
Narayanan, A., & Kapoor, S. (2024). AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can’t, and How to Tell the Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Nemitz, P. (2018). Constitutional Democracy and Technology in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Philosophical Transactions A, 376(2133), 1-14.
Nicgorski, W. (2021). Cicero’s Republicanism. In J. W. Atkins, & T. Bénatouïl, (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero’s Philosophy (pp. 215–230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: New York University Press.
Pasquinelli, M. (2023). The Eye of the Master: A Social History of Artificial Intelligence. London: Verso.
Pettit, P. (2009). Liberalism and Republicanism. In R. O. Brooks, (Ed.), Cicero and Modern Law, (pp. 543-570). New York: Routledge.
Risse, M. (2023). Political Theory of the Digital Age: Where Artificial Intelligence Might Take Us. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rothman, J. (2023). Why the Godfather of A.I. Fears What He’s Built. Retrieved 22 June 2024, from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/11/20/geoffrey-hinton-profile-ai
Sangkhamanee, J. (2019). Rat Wisawakam: Mong Kan Sang Rat Ratchakan Phan Patibatkan Choeng Thek Mo. [An Engineering State: View Bureaucrats Through Techno Science Practice]. Journal of Same Sky Book, 17(2), 57-90. (In Thai)
Sangkhamanee, J. (2021). Withi Witthaya Nai STS. [Methodology of STS]. In Y. Mukdawijitra, & C. Ajanakitti, (Eds.), Manutsayawitthaya Phon Manut, [Posthuman Anthropology], (pp.53-92). Bangkok: Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre. (In Thai)
Schofield, M. (1995). Cicero’s Definition of Res Publica. In J. G. F. Powell, (Ed.), Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers, (pp. 63-83). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Schofield, M. (2021). Cicero: Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sismondo, S. (2024). Witthayasat Lae Theknoloyi Sueksa: Khwamru Bueangton. [An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies]. Lertsatienchai, P. (Trans). Bangkok: Illuminations Edition. (In Thai)
Smith, G. B. (2018). Political Philosophy and the Republican Future: Reconsidering Cicero. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Somboon, V. (2018). Thruesadi Kanmueang Kap Khwam Samphan Rawang Prathet. [Political Theory and International Relastions]. Bangkok: Way of Book. (In Thai)
Supachalasai, C. (2018). Technopocene. Chiang Mai: Turm. (In Thai)
Turner, J. (2019). Robot Rules. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Vile, M. J. C. (1998). Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Walsh, T. (2025). The Shortest History of AI: The Six Essential Ideas That Animate It. New York: The Experiment.
Yuenyong, K. (2023). Generative AI's Role in Social Science Both in Research Assistance and Analysis. PAAT Journal, 5(10), 109-131. (In Thai)
Zetzel, J. E. G. (2013). Political philosophy. In C. Steel, (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero, (pp. 181–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
